Mystery of Benghazi mess deepens

I did not say there was no evidence. I was just saying that no
amount of evidence will ever convince you that Obama was wrong. Have the
testimonies that have been presented concerning the attack (i.e. they were
warned of an attack, they did not provide adequate protection, etc.) not count
as evidence? Or does Obama, as the savior of our nation (as proclaimed by
democrats in 2008), have such power that his word is automatically designated as
fact without rebuttal?

markSalt Lake City, UT

Nov. 3, 2012 8:02 p.m.

So in other words, Riverton Couger, you have absolutely no evidence.

Riverton CougarRiverton, UT

Nov. 3, 2012 2:59 p.m.

Since when does Obama need to "investigate" how much he knew? Why can
he not tell us what he knew and when he knew it? It is so silly to imply that
he needs to investigate what he knew and what his orders were.

The
way I see it Obama could come out and say it was all his fault, he knew it was
an attack and attempted to cover up his failures, release the videos, and STILL
some people on this board will say "Where is the evidence?"!

markSalt Lake City, UT

Nov. 3, 2012 10:06 a.m.

Uh, wrz, read whose book? What is all in there? Are you talking about Presidents
Obama's books? If so, there aren't several, there are 2, I believe,
and there is absolutely nothing in them dealing with Benghazi, how could there
be? But yes, I am aware that the President smoked pot and used coke when he was
younger. At least he admits it, and I don't care. And it has nothing to do
with Benghazi.

"You ignore evidence presented to you"

Counter intelligence, what evidence? That's the point, nobody has
presented evidence to back up these wild claims. Nobody.

Tolstoysalt lake, UT

Nov. 2, 2012 8:47 p.m.

@CI

what evidence?

"I find those people that abuse and
censor in the name of tolerance and sensitivity to be a particularly nefarious
group."

now who is playing the victim?

We all want
the truth but all you offer are conspiracies which only serve to retraumatize
the victims families not move us closer to the truth.

wrzOgden, UT

Nov. 2, 2012 8:19 p.m.

@mark:

"So, wrz, you would love to provide evidence, but you
don't have any. So you guys will just make up stuff."

It's in his book. Read his books. There are several. It's all in
there.

"Beautiful."

I'd call it more like
ugly.

@Rifleman:

"... and why is he refusing to
divulge it?"

He can't afford a picture of ineptitude this
close to an election. So, for him the best solution is just keep the whole
affair under wraps until after the election. And then, it won't matter.
Even after that, if he wins, it will continue to be unresolved. But then all
the air will have gone out of the story and it will collapse go the way of all
old news.

Hank PymSLC, UT

Nov. 2, 2012 8:07 p.m.

@ jim l 7:20 a.m. Nov. 1, 2012

Because Glennie is the pinnacle of
credibility, right!?

In more important & pressing news; Bama
& LSU play tomorrow.

Counter IntelligenceSalt Lake City, UT

Nov. 2, 2012 4:34 p.m.

@Tolstoy

Of course you don't understand, because you do the
exact same thing as George: You ignore evidence presented to you that does not
fit into a narrow left-wing view of the world, then you attempt to shame anyone
with a different opinion into silence by discounting inconvenient facts as
merely being "wild conspiracy theories" that hurt people.

I
find those people that abuse and censor in the name of tolerance and sensitivity
to be a particularly nefarious group (which is why I am far less conservative
than I am merely abhorrent of political correctness).

The families
are demanding knowledge, not silence. Therefore using feigned concern for the
families as rationalization for bullying anyone not cowing to Obama into silence
and advocating sweeping tough questions under the carpet, is the truly
"disrespectful" and offensive tact.

If your respect for the
families was motivated by anything more than the need for political cover - you
would be demanding the truth; not rationalizing smokescreens.

Advocating obfuscation is a perpetrating behavior - not a "sensitive"
or "tolerant" one.

UtahBlueDevilDurham, NC

Nov. 2, 2012 2:40 p.m.

RG - let me understand your logic. A lie or misinformation was told by a person
of authority, and you are saying the ones who are to blame are the ones who
believe the lies.

Good grief, we have moved to new levels of blame
shifting. It's not the fault of the one misleading, it is the fault of he
people who believe the lie or misinformation.

Partisanship now moves
to new levels..... honestly and blame are relative to which party you belong
too.

Nice.

If Obama had bad information, and made a bad
decision based on that... that is his fault. If Bush made a bad decision based
on bad information, and Hillary believed him and supported him... it is
Hillary's fault.

I think we can all see where this is headed.

Tolstoysalt lake, UT

Nov. 2, 2012 1:22 p.m.

@counter intelligence

I don't hardly think George pointing out
the complete lack of respect that the posters show towards the victims families
is the same as him playing the victim sorry.

As to the rest of your
post we know have five pages of wild conspiracy theories and childish name
calling by the conspiracy theorist and still no evidence to support any of the
claims made. So once again show me the evidence.

Counter IntelligenceSalt Lake City, UT

Nov. 2, 2012 12:39 p.m.

@George

Your ability to play victim when others do not fall in line
with your dogma is amazing

This administration:Knew about poor
securityDenied security requestsWatched the act unfoldWithheld
helpInflamed a story about a video Parsed words for cover

Only the most naive Obama groupie would wait until their house completely
burnt down before admitting there are huge flames behind that massive
smokescreen

RiflemanSalt Lake City, Utah

Nov. 2, 2012 12:02 p.m.

Re: spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT

What did Obama know about the
terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, when did he know it, and
why is he refusing to divulge it?

markSalt Lake City, UT

Nov. 2, 2012 11:45 a.m.

In the Independent article redshirt mentions, the Libyans claim they warned us
about immanent attacks. However, from the same article:

A State
Department spokesman maintained: "We are not aware of any actionable
intelligence indicating that an attack on the US Mission in Benghazi was planned
or imminent."

So who you gonna believe? The Libyans? Or the
Americans?

-So, wrz, you would love to provide evidence, but you
don't have any. So you guys will just make up stuff. Beautiful.

wrzOgden, UT

Nov. 2, 2012 11:23 a.m.

@mark:

"To the other posters that are making extreme claims (it
was all part of an Obama kidnapping plot. Good heavens! ), please provide
evidence to back up your incredible claims. Be precise and cite your sources.
Good luck."

We'd love to provide evidence but the Obama
Administration is trying its best to keep the whole thing covered up... just
like his college/university documents that D. Trump is willing to pay $5 million
to have released. This guy, Barack Hussein Obama, promised transparency in his
presidency. What we get is secrecy and cover-up.

And while I'm
at it, why could anyone vote for this guy who has questionable background, use
of illegal drugs, association with criminals and socialists, and possibly a
foreigner and not even eligible to be out president. Good grief! Have we as a
nation gone nuts?

Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, Ut

Nov. 2, 2012 10:51 a.m.

To "Tolstoy" since you are too lazy to do some simple internet searches,
here is all the proof you need, yet will probably ignore.

"Libya:
We gave US three-day warning of Benghazi attack" from The Independant. Here
they list out some of the key things previously stated:

"diplomatic sources who said that the threat of an attack against US
interests in the region was known to the US administration 48 hours before it
took place."

"The British consulate in the city was shut
after an ambush of a convoy carrying Dominic Asquith, the UK ambassador"

Benghazi is 480 miles from Italy, where there were members of Delta
Force, and other rapid response teams waiting. The battle lasted for 7 hours.
That was more than enough time for those troops to be air lifted to where they
were needed. Plus there was a Spectre gunship in the area, that was never
called in. Why?

NedGrimleyBrigham City, UT

Nov. 2, 2012 10:25 a.m.

Redshirt:

The article from CNN to which raybies was referring may the
editorial by William Bennett on Nov 1, 2012.

spring streetSALT LAKE CITY, UT

Nov. 2, 2012 9:56 a.m.

@riflemanSo your argument that it is not a conspiracy theory is another
conspiracy theory? interesting.

wrzOgden, UT

Nov. 2, 2012 9:55 a.m.

@Kyle loves BYU/Jazz:

"I don't understand how the President
can get away without answering any questions about it."

Three
reasons:

He told us months ago that he and his administration had Al
Qaeda on its heels. Benghazi, and riots in other Muslim dominated countries
such as Egypt Syria, Tunisia, etc., shows he doesn't.

He thought
the Arab Spring was a movement to more democracy in the Mideast. It
wasn't.

Part of his heritage hails from the religion from whence
terrorism springs. He'd rather not be be seen being associated with it
while running for president.

RiflemanSalt Lake City, Utah

Nov. 2, 2012 9:35 a.m.

Re: Tolstoy salt lake, UT"Once again if those are the "facts"
then where is your evidence to support your claims?."

The facts
are what the father of the murdered former Navy Seal is asking for. Obama has
gone mute on the subject. Like Operation Fast and Furious they are hoping to
bury the story.

Tolstoysalt lake, UT

Nov. 2, 2012 9:13 a.m.

@ Thomas

Once again if those are the "facts" then where is
your evidence to support your claims?. "Fact" without support is at best
theory and in this case nothing more then conspiracy theory.

SoCalChrisRiverside, CA

Nov. 2, 2012 7:58 a.m.

UBD, if the facts are as you say, the White House would have come clean from the
get-go. They still haven't come clean. Instead they obfuscated for 2
weeks. Obama has tried to have it both ways by blaming the events on a video
and slipping some ambiguous words is a speech. They haven't been waiting
for all the facts -- they've been trying to get their story straight. That
should be obvious.

As for body-bags, there would have been many more
if Woods and Doherty hadn't disregarded the order to stand down.

TruthseekerSLO, CA

Nov. 2, 2012 7:43 a.m.

Hillary Clinton's statement accompanying her vote on the Authorization to
Use Force:

"Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes
success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and
because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring
more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and
serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security
of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few
Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go
way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted
inspections."

TruthseekerSLO, CA

Nov. 2, 2012 7:36 a.m.

Re:RG

Congress, including the Democrats were foolish. However, they
voted in Oct/Nov of 2002 and war didn't begin until several months later..
Hillary Clinton's statement accompanying her vote her vote:

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or
for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of
which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and
for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

So it is
with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of
our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts
awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use
these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to
Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

After the vote, Saddam Hussein allowed UN Weapons Inspectors back into Iraq
for the first time since 1998. When Bush chose to invade Iraq, Inspectors had
found little evidence of WMDs, and requested more time.

UtahBlueDevilDurham, NC

Nov. 2, 2012 6:35 a.m.

" A full contingent of Marines within 45 minutes from fist call for help. As
Sen. McCain said, we never leave our own in harms way."

Yeah....
in Italy. And not 45 minutes in helicopters. You are going to fly marines in
from Italy, with no plan, no awareness of the situation of the conditions on the
ground. How many body bags did you want being flown back? We tried that
before, with a lot more planning, and a lot more logistics support, and it ended
disastrously in Somalia. It is bad that this happened, but it would have been
even worse had Generals sent in unprepared troops into a situation they were not
prepared for just so some could live out their John Wayne fantasy of the troops
heroically riding over the Hill to save the day.

The body bag count
would have been much higher if our government had followed this FoxNews cowboy
script. Some people actually pay attention to history, and learn from it.

""a coward cannot know a heroes heart." .... and a hero
doesn't foolishly put his pals into combat with no plan, no understanding
of the theater. Were talking real lives, not political rhetoric.

TruthseekerSLO, CA

Nov. 2, 2012 6:31 a.m.

Inelligence officials told reporters Thursday that when the CIA annex received a
call about the assault, about a half dozen members of a CIA security team tried
to get heavy weapons and other assistance from the Libyans. But when the Libyans
failed to respond, the security team, which routinely carries small arms, went
ahead with the rescue attempt. At no point was the team told to wait, the
officials said.

They said the outmanned and outgunned team members
made all the key decisions on the ground, with no second-guessing from senior
officials monitoring the situation from afar.

The officials spoke on
condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide intelligence
information publicly.

According to the detailed timeline senior
officials laid out Thursday, the first call to the CIA base came in at about
9:40 p.m., and less than 25 minutes later the team headed to the consulate. En
route they tried to get additional assistance, but were unable to get much aid
from the Libyan militias.

By 11:30 p.m., all of the U.S. personnel,
except Stevens, left and drove back to the annex, with some taking fire from
militants along the way.

RGBuena Vista, VA

Nov. 2, 2012 6:20 a.m.

@ UtahBlueDevil and Truthseeker: If bad intelligence led to the Iraq war, the
dems believed that intelligence just as much as Bush did. Dems conveniently
forget, for example, that Hillary was alarmed about the WMDs and said we should
go get rid of them, and Kerry voted for the war. They were not the only dems who
believed in the WMDs. Plus, the Iraq war was voted on by congress, as the
constitution requires, while Obama’s Libya war was not.

@George and Truthseeker: “there is an investigation on going”
…. and that is the point of the administration – to have it on
going, and going, and going…so that by the time it is over (which will be
well past the election) we’ve all forgotten about it and moved to other
things. Obama knows well that he lied about the video being the reason for the
attack, but claims to still be “investigating.” No, he’s just
trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

A1994Centerville, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 11:33 p.m.

@Tolstoy

There are emails. There is a paper trail. An electronic
one, but a trail. This isn't made up. No matter what Hillary Clinton
calls it, there are emails that clearly ordered our people to 'stand
down.'

Doesn't it seem just the tiniest bit odd to you
that so many people in this administration got it so wrong?

"...I do have to ask what are you going to do Wednesday morning or when
ever it is announced who the winner is if Obama ends up wining a second
term?"

I think we will find out Tuesday night that Mitt Romney
has won. But regardless who wins, this story isn't going away. Four
Americans are dead and there are actual emails that show that someone made a
decision to let them die. You put a lot of your faith in people whose soul
purpose is to get elected. I don't.

TruthseekerSLO, CA

Nov. 1, 2012 10:07 p.m.

re:UtahBlueDevil"I would gladly be in the Obamas shoes rather than the
Bush administrations shoes when history looks back and decides who mislead the
American people at the greatest cost to human life."

Well put.

The facts will come out when the investigation is complete.

End of story.

In the meantime, Republicans can entertain
themselves with the conspiracy theories....

John NZWellington/NZ, 00

Nov. 1, 2012 9:43 p.m.

Have to agree with "one old man"

wYo8Rock Springs, WY

Nov. 1, 2012 9:22 p.m.

All I can say is thank you Jason Chaffetz for your investigation and wanting to
find out who is responsible for the lack of leadership. What has jim matheson
said about this cover up. I haven't heard him say anything about it. This
alone would lead me to vote for Mia Love if I had a vote in Utah. One former
military leader said tonight if nothing else comes from this obama has broken
the code of leaving no one behind. That alone will have a lasting effect on our
military.

Tom in CAVallejo, CA

Nov. 1, 2012 9:12 p.m.

Romney didn't try in the debates to make a "big deal" of the
Benghazi situation/cover-up/scandal, because he knew the anointed one would
simply give him the run-around, take up valuable time, and get away with it.
Obama's pad answer is, "we are still investigating".

Funny how Fox News journalists have done their "investigations", and
are light years ahead of the president's investigations. The facts will
eventually all come out, and Obama will be exposed for what he is - a weakling,
a poor commander in chief, an inept leader, and a liar.

donquixote84721Cedar City, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 8:59 p.m.

When one enlists in the United States Military, active duty or reserve, they
take the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the
Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Seems like pretty good motivation
to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the
obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to
be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the
one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are
accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was
illegal.

If any law infringes on MY Constitution, it is NOT Lawful.

Tolstoysalt lake, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 8:58 p.m.

@A1994

"lefties" do not have to "deny" anything since
you and yours have failed time and again to provide on shred of evidence to
support your claims.

Now I have no idea who will win come next
tuesday but I do have to ask what are you going to do Wednesday morning or when
ever it is announced who the winner is if Obama ends up wining a second term?
eight years of the type of bitter mindset you and others have shown is very
unhealthy not only for your mind and body but also your soul.

A1994Centerville, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 8:44 p.m.

"This will be the most transparent administration in history."

And here we are in the middle of a cover up. Amazing that the lefties
are in such denial. The President is not giving us the truth. He's not
even talking. Who gave the order to stand down? Who let Americans die? Who
gave Mexican drug cartels guns? Oh, and by the way, what is in the Heath Care
Bill? This man is the worst kind of politician. To top it all off, he has no
plan for his second term and has left us with a worse economy than he inherited.
Game over. This guy is done next Tuesday.

worfMcallen, TX

Nov. 1, 2012 8:27 p.m.

Time for Obama to man up, and explain not only Libya, but guns to Mexican
cartels as well.

GeorgeBronx, NY

Nov. 1, 2012 8:14 p.m.

@nedwhile I am certainly not a Romney fan I think the fact that he has not
ran with all these wild conspiracy theories shows at least a minimal amount of
decorum and decency on his part which is more then I can say for the posers on
this thread,

GeorgeBronx, NY

Nov. 1, 2012 7:39 p.m.

@no name people believe wild conspiracy theories not because the facts are
not known but because they want to believe that the government is evil and out
to get them. Some facts have been released there is an investigation on going.
you can make the choice to follow the facts as they are released or you can
choose to run after the wild conspiracy theories. its your choice but the reason
those in the media that are not covering the conspiracies is because there is
nothing to support those claims and are choosing not to inflict further harm to
sell a few papers or a internet radio show. The DN used to know what journalism
and integrity meant but have clearly lost sight of it.

UtahBlueDevilDurham, NC

Nov. 1, 2012 7:24 p.m.

Ok.... lets just say that the white house didn't use the word terror and
under estimated the threat. Lets just assume that this is all true and accepted
by all.

Now with that said, even if this is all true, I still
don't get the indignation by the NeoCons on this site. If the deaths of 4
people raises to gross incompetence, what does the bad intelligence that led to
the deaths of over 4,000 service people, and nearly 70,000 civilians in Iraq
rise to?

I would gladly be in the Obamas shoes rather than the Bush
administrations shoes when history looks back and decides who mislead the
American people at the greatest cost to human life. It is an amazing display of
bravado by the ultra conservatives to be trying to make this gap of intelligence
in Libya to be greater than what preceded it in Iraq.

4 lives versus
all toll more than 100,000 in Iraq. Really folks? You want to start drawing
comparisons in judgement?

djkblue springs, MO

Nov. 1, 2012 6:53 p.m.

the media will do all it can to hide the ruth. chris christie is a two faced
turkey like obama is. photo ops and media ops. i am so done with the pre
election drama. i want obama out and romney in. our country needs to recover and
heal. obama uses any tactic for attention. he is using the 'sandy
storm' as his new glory moment. he treats the country like trash then when
election time is tight he comes out hugging and smiling. i personally am tired
of obama and biden and their gadianton warriors !

No nameProvo, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 6:50 p.m.

The best solution would be that the government releases facts they know about
the attack to the public. Seems simple enough, yet we still do not have clear
answers either way. I feel it would clear up so much confusion, and would
restore some type of closure to the families who lost loved ones.It's no
wonder people are coming up with theories. We haven't received answers, so
obviously people are going to speculate. I was watching the news (I believe the
CBS evening news) back in September and the report stated that the attack was
the result of a youtube video that sparked protesters to attack. The report
stated names of the individuals who made the video, and also noted that the
video was posted several months before the attack, and had few views until
around the attack on 9/11. It's hard to know what to believe when I
saw/heard one thing and then got a completely different story a few days later.
After listening to the interview Glen Beck did with Tyrone Woods father, I know
there are vital details that, for whatever reason, have not been revealed that
someone needs to answer for.

SoCalChrisRiverside, CA

Nov. 1, 2012 6:44 p.m.

The mainstream media was in a feeding frenzy over an outed CIA agent a few years
ago. The story was trivial by comparison.

Here we have 4 dead
Americans, including an ambassador and CIA personnel, denials of additional
security beforehand and desperately needed help during the attack, a complete
abandonment of fellow Americans, and a cover-up -- and a shrug of the shoulders
from our state-run media and some people on this thread.

It's
amazing to me that Obama can blame the events on a video for 2 weeks but slip
the generic words "acts of terror" in his Rose Garden speech, and his
faithful followers will buy into it and say -- see he's been candid! Even
Candy Crowley had to admit that was nonsense.

GeorgeBronx, NY

Nov. 1, 2012 6:02 p.m.

@RedshirtYou don't even need to deal with reading you can google the
full speech of all three on video and watch his lips actually form the words
and hear him say it.

this man came to reporter s in a time of what I can
only imagine of great grief and probably anger and fox and people like you have
taken advantage of his situation and without any evidence to support your claims
used it for your own dishonest purposes.

@redshirt

What
liberal lie? read the transcripts from the three events I sited its right there
in black and white. I am sorry the facts are getting in your way but they are
what they are.

WildcatO-town, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 4:41 p.m.

Looks like the Righties are already giving up on winning the election and
creating their "grounds" to impeach Obama during his second
term--pathetic.

I guess it is not enough for some of the the paranoid
Righties for a speech dedicated to Benghazi to have the phrase "No acts of
terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation..." Now every
sentence in every Obama speech will have to mention the subject being addressed
in the whole speech because the Righties will say it was meant in an overall
terrorism context.

GOOD GRIEF! Only five more days of the Romney
Reader, then the D-News will have to give that up and go back to justifying BYU
football independence 24/7.

"I stand by what I said, whatever
it was." Willard Mitt Romney

Amen Mittens! Amen.

Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, Ut

Nov. 1, 2012 4:26 p.m.

To "AnH" what was illegal about what Bush did?

Before we went
into Iraq, Bush followed federal law and received authorization for military
action for an extended period of time.

What law was broken.

You realize that under Obama's watch, more soldiers have died than in the
previous 8 years under Bush. So, if Obama is so wise for with such a high
casualty rate, Bush must be a super genious.

It is clear that you,
and your ilk are grasping at straws if you call a legal act illegal.

Benghazi should be a concern because per federal law, if an ambassador or
embassy is attacked, the President is to be informed immediately. If the laws
were followed, and the President knew, why didn't he do anything? If the
laws were not followed, why is the President NOT doing anything?

Either way, there appears to be a coverup. Should we be willing to allow a
President to be involved in a coverup where an ambassador and soldiers were
killed?

cindyacreShelley, ID

Nov. 1, 2012 4:13 p.m.

The "offending" video was released in July. Why did it take until right
before 9/11/2012 for it to "offend" people? Why were the producers of
the video supposedly coptic Christian but their aim was to incite violence?
There are so many questions to be answered.

Social Mod Fiscal ConWest Jordan, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 3:58 p.m.

Candy Crowley admits she got it wrong and that the President did not refer to
Benghazi as a terror or terroist attack. She commented, "I think actually,
you know, because right after that, I did turn to Romney and said you were
totally correct but they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape
and that there was this riot outside of the Benghazi consulate, which there
wasn't. So he was right in the main, I just think that he picked the wrong
word."

Social Mod Fiscal ConWest Jordan, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 3:56 p.m.

A review of the official transcript on the White House website and the video
from the Rose Garden address shows that not once did the president call the
Benghazi attack a "terror attack." He used the word "terror"
exactly once, late in his address:

“No acts of terror will
ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse
the light of the values that we stand for.” From the context, it was clear
that his reference to "terror" was general. Not once did he apply that
characterization to Benghazi.

AnHSalt Lake City, Utah

Nov. 1, 2012 3:37 p.m.

Can any of us imagine the consequences of putting this much scrutiny on the Bush
administration and its illegal Iraqi war? That four Americans died is terrible.
That thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died due to a
lie that was clearly exposed before the attack was even launched is so very much
worse that I find this entire concern with Benghazi coming from the right
hypocritical to say the least. Obama may or may not have made mistakes, but when
put against our past republican presidents, Reagan being almost as bad as Bush
with his dishonesty about the Iran/Contra affair, Obama looks especially wise.
Meaning is all about context, and it's clear the right wing is grasping at
straws.

worfMcallen, TX

Nov. 1, 2012 3:01 p.m.

More evidence! Obama doesn't like the America as he his apology tour
demonstrated.

Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, Ut

Nov. 1, 2012 2:18 p.m.

To "spring street" aparently you believe the liberal lies. According to
the original reports by CNN, it wasn't until September 20 that the White
House finally said that Bengazi was a terrorist attack on the ambasador. See CNN
article "Clinton: No sign that Stevens believed he was on an al Qaeda hit
list". In there they clearly state that "The White House, for the first
time Thursday, declared the attack that killed Stevens and three other people a
terrorist attack." The article was written on September 21, so that means
it wasn't until September 20th that the White House finally said that
Bengazi was a terrorist attack.

You can believe the latest spin, or
you can look at what was originally said. Personally, this whole thing looks
like a huge coverup.

KJB1Eugene, OR

Nov. 1, 2012 2:16 p.m.

The reason the "mainstream media" isn't falling all over this story
is because there's no evidence to back up any of these wild claims. If
there were any real proof that these allegations are even half as bad as you
guys would like to believe, they'd be all over it. The idea that
they're "protecting" President Obama is laughable.

I'm guessing that you don't even realize the problem you're
creating for yourselves here. I'm sure you like to imagine yourselves as
crusaders seeking the truth, but from outside of your right-wing bubble you just
look like people who hate the president so irrationally that you'll grasp
at any straw in the hopes that he won't be re-elected (Today's New
York Time 538 blog gives him a 79% chance of winning on Tuesday.) Even Geraldo
Rivera is criticizing the "GOP bloodlust" that's trying to whip
this story into something it's not, and when you've lost someone as
over-the-top as him, it might be time for some rethinking.

Sadly,
I'm guessing that won't happen...

SLMGMurtoa Australia, Victoria

Nov. 1, 2012 1:43 p.m.

Now some aggressive reporting by Fox News' Jennifer Griffin has expanded
scrutiny to the attack itself

As soon as I read those words I know
what is coming, another Fox beat up to beat up on the Obama Administration.
Lots of words with little substance other than extreme right wing whining and I
wasn't wrong. Undoubtly there were mistakes made but none were deliberat,
but as usual Fox News is going to make it into something that they can rant
about while other news passes them by because it isn't as sensational.

markSalt Lake City, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 1:25 p.m.

Redshirt, I imagine the article raybies is talking about is: Bennett: Obama,
what happened in Benghazi?

It is not a news article, it is an op-ed.
It is by William Bennet. You know, Bob Bennet, the staunch conservative.

The op-ed seems to be just repeating what FOX said. I don't agree
with the conclusions Mr Bennet reaches. But I imagine you might appreciate it.
So there it is.

To the other posters that are making extreme claims
(it was all part of an Obama kidnapping plot. Good heavans! ), please provide
evidence to back up your incredible claims. Be precise and cite your sources.
Good luck.

Flying FinnMurray, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 1:05 p.m.

@ spring street

It was the father of the Navy Seal who brought this
to out attention, and it was he who is asking why President Obama isn't
answering his questions. If President Obama had done his job this man's
son would still be alive. Shall we all stick our heads in the sand and pretend
that it didn't happen?

UtahBlueDevilDurham, NC

Nov. 1, 2012 1:03 p.m.

The main source for this "investigative" piece..... FoxNews un-named
sources.

The facts will come out.

Many wont like them
regardless of which way they lean

Conspiracy people will have a hay
day with this making up all kids of wild claims they can't support other
than they read it on the internet somewhere.

And sane people will
look for a measured and thoughtful analysis of what happened... when all the
facts are in.

But until then, we will have the grassy knoll types,
the Bush planned 9/11, that Pearl Harbor was a ruse to get us into the War
theories. There are people out there that want to think the worst of other
people, and no logical discussion is going to change their mind.

Henry DrummondSan Jose, CA

Nov. 1, 2012 12:33 p.m.

@KJB1I doubt the Republicans will as interested in this issue after the
election as they are now. Romney was clearly wrong (and offensive) in his
attack during the debate. Obama called it a terrorist attack the next day.

RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 11:44 a.m.

To "raybies" can you please post the name of the story that you found on
CNN. Since liberals refuse to believe Fox, maybe some of the more sensible
liberals will believe CNN reporting that there is a coverup going on.

spring streetSALT LAKE CITY, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 11:44 a.m.

@rifleman

the fact that fox news and people like you keep exploiting
that fathers grief is just further evidence of George's point.

@O"really

people keep claiming he never called it an act of
terror yet he did three times in the first 48 hours. in the rose garden on 9/12,
in denver on /913 and again in Nevada on 9/13. the CIA made a statement two days
ago stating that they where at no time told to stand down, do you have proof
otherwise? The official story of what happened to the ambassador states he was
taken to a different safe house type area and that is where he died and that at
no point was he drug through the streets. DO you have proof otherwise.Do you
have any proof there was a live feed that was being watched? do you have any
actual proof of any of the claims being made?

@Cats

can
you say wild conspiracy?

the_narratorclaremont, ca

Nov. 1, 2012 11:29 a.m.

"even though, as Reuters reported, White House officials had been told
within two hours that it was a planned terrorist attack."

Have
you read actually read the Reuters report and leaked emails? There is NOTHING in
them that says it was a planned terrorist attack.

Terrible reporting.

CatsSomewhere in Time, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 11:25 a.m.

Can you say...coverup?

RepublicantthinkstraighAnywhere but, Utah, Utah

Nov. 1, 2012 11:12 a.m.

I'm glad to hear all the Pub's clear up this issue. Heck, why even do
an investigation lets just send Fox News in to do the reporting. They seem to
have all the facts.

No matter that Ambassador Stevens was at the
CONSULATE not the EMBASSY, which was more heavily guarded but in Tripoli. Lets
not forget that its KINDA hard to stop a mob set on murdering and destruction.
It's easy after the fact to say "We should have had more
protection", nobody could have seen this coming. Yes, they requested more
security but you can thank the Pubs for cutting spending on security.

And to all those who say Obama is a murderer... Get real Please. I could say
Bush murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 with that justification. "He should
have seen the warning signs, because of President Bush 3,000 Americans are
dead." Doesn't make sense right? Then quit being one-sided. Just a
bunch of hypocrites. Republican=Hypocrite on every single issue!

Scott12345Salt Lake City, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 10:57 a.m.

Thanks for being so measured in your article! THIS kind of article is an
excellent example of the very best reporting, that we need MORE of.
(Unfortunately, news is such a 24-hour cycle, reduced to sound bites, that we
just don't get many of these types of stories anymore.)

It will
be very interesting to hear the results of the inquiries and investigations.

My thoughts go out to the families who experienced loss of their
loved ones. Those who gave their lives protecting others (who also reduced the
casualties that would have happened without their help) are heroes that deserve
the public admiration. They deserve their stories, and the full truth, to be
told. To have the "official" story switched several times is an
absolute disgrace, and borders on despicable behavior. Come clean, tell all,
and honor our dead heroes. Yes, someone's career will probably end when
all is told. Maybe several. Well, do what's right. (A general was
already forced into early retirement over this.) If "they" didn't
do what was right in the first place, we don't want them in such high
places (making life and death decisions) anyway.

raybiesLayton, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 10:56 a.m.

About two hours ago CNN wrote a story about the "coverup" and CONFIRMED
more or less all the claims that FOX News has been bringing to the attention of
the American people. The facts being reported by FOX News are correct. They
denied there's a coverup. Yet if you go to their website, IT IS NOT LISTED
ON THEIR FRONT PAGE. I found it doing a targeted news search.

This
is how an internet news coverup occurs. They write the stories so that they can
later point to them and claim they're fair and balanced, but what you
don't see is how much exposure those stories actually get on their website.
If they never allow the story to reach the front page, and bury it beneath
hundreds of opposing opinion pieces that have either nothing to do with it, or
denigrate the candidate they don't endorse, they are showing political
bias--while trying to leave themselves evidence so that they can point back at
it once they're called on the carpet for media bias.

They are
expert liars, because they've told the truth the whole time, just hide all
the inconvenient parts.

patriotCedar Hills, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 10:54 a.m.

Asking Obama to come clean on Benghazi is like expecting Nixon to volunteer the
Watergate tapes to the media. Not going to happen. The ONLY way you will ever
find out the details from the White House is if you have a GOP led senate and an
appointed oversight committee led by the GOP who crack this case open for all to
see. Obama is a coward and a liar but that is what the man has always been so
nothing new here. Obama lied about the video. Obama instructed others to lie
about the video. Obama gave the order to our waiting forces to "stand
down" even as he watched real time this 7 hour attack play out. The plan all
along was to present this to the American people as a video inspired mob attack
and nothing more. Obama allowed 2 brave Navy Seals to die so when Obama now says
"we leave no one behind" ... what sort of spineless man is this guy?
Barack Obama is a man without honor and 50% of America love him for it - what
does that tell you about that 50% (or 47% as Mitt correctly stated)

1conservativeWEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 10:51 a.m.

Obama is losing votes fast on the Benghazi issue.

Anyone want to take
bets that he will go on the air on Mon. evening to offer an
"explanation" (notice I use quotation marks)for Benghazi?

It
gets him back a few voters; yet doesn't provide enough time for any kind of
fact checking BEFORE the election.

Bag ManPOWDER SPRINGS, GA

Nov. 1, 2012 10:46 a.m.

I think the families of those killed should file a wrongful death law suit
against the government and this administration for failure to protect them.
This would then bring all the information out into the open and address the real
concern of protecting all individuals in the service of America.

I
do not care what administration is is office, we need to protect those that are
put in harms way.

O'reallyIdaho Falls, ID

Nov. 1, 2012 10:42 a.m.

@ George You have it wrong. How long before the WH fesses up to what really
happened so the families can feel some peace. According to those claiming
it's a conspiracy theory, let's hear what your theory is that
completly exonerates the president. If it smells like a fish, it most likely is
a fish, or at least contains something really putrid.

A day or two
after the attack, Glenn Beck put out his theory. His ideas made sense. Even
before anyone was calling this a cover-up, he called it. Peter's ideas add
a new level of intriguing possibilities. There was definitely something
clandestine going on.

If the right doesn't keep this story alive
and keep asking for answers the WH would let it die a silent death. The left (as
demonstrated in George's comments) would love to sweep this under the rug
for another week. But they are actually making the POTUS look more culpable by
their continual denial that anything was amiss. Conspiracy theory, my foot. Far
more than a theory going on here. What's going on is stonewalling and a
blatant cover-up.

John20000Cedar Hills, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 10:30 a.m.

If terrorist attacks on US citizens are a "bump in the road", then we
are headed down the wrong road. Terrorist attacks need swift punishment,
otherwise, terrorists become emboldened. We should be hunting down whoever did
this?

Does the Obama administration even know the names of the
terrorists that attacked yet? Or have we given up on justice?

RiflemanSalt Lake City, Utah

Nov. 1, 2012 10:16 a.m.

Re: George Bronx, NY"The only mystery here is how long they far right
is going to continue this completely tasteless behavior ..."

About as long as the liberal media pandered to Cindy Sheehan. Have you not
heard that the father of Tyrone Woods, former Navy Seal killed trying to save
the life of our Ambassador in Libya, wants the truth .... and Obama had gone
mute on the subject?

BigRichOrem, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 9:51 a.m.

In viewing the Sandy Hurricane disaster, O'bama promised "we won't
leave anyone behind." Where was that promise on September 11? The simple
truth is, someone made the decision that it was better to let these 4 people die
rather than attempt a rescue. It was better to try to convince the public that
it was an unorganized riot sparked by an obscure anti-Islamic video rather than
an organized terrorist attack. Why can't people see the obvious? Those in
charge didn't want another 9/11, small or large, on their watch. I find
the whole thing disgusting. If I were family of these four heros, I would be
incensed, which obviously they are.

JWBKaysville, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 9:45 a.m.

Peter, that is a good thought.

Last week some information surfaced
that the Ambassador was meeting with the Turkish ambassador discussing arms
shipments through Turkey to Syria for the rebels, there.

That could
explain why the Ambassador was there on 9/11 one of the most dangerous places
for a United States of America diplomat in Libya as the Ambassador told about in
his August memo to the Secretary of State and others.

Knowing what
the Ambassador knew on security, why would he be in Benghazi on potentially the
most dangerous day and night without adequate protection, even with coverage
from the Annex?

More will surface about our involvement or lack of
involvement.

To think of our capability just across the water from
military units that could handle that situation, if done timely. If you
don't give our people protection, when available, will our diplomatic corps
and others be willing to do everything they can for our country, the United
States of America?

From the shores of Tripoli could have been a
Marine outpost again. The song is invigorating to sing and to understand what
those Americans did so long ago.

As with Nixon you pay now or after
election.

CT98Saint George, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 9:39 a.m.

The Obama Administration is clearly hiding something by the fact that they
refuse to answer details about the situation. They are waiting until after the
election to come clean with the info.

JWBKaysville, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 9:36 a.m.

It is hard for me to believe this administration wouldn't fess up to the
problems they caused for us diplomatically, militarily and for the intelligence
gathering capability. To have to top CIA director types involved is a dishonor
for their employee's years of dedicated service to preserve our country.
The CIA is an agency that should be at the forefront of helping restore faith in
this situation. The cloud of secrecy was blown when the annex responded to
their comrades at the consulate.

To not have a situation room with
the highest of authorities meeting together to discuss what they would do
appears to be absent. You would want those that could do their required
assessments of the situation and then take appropriate action.

When
you know the August date for the classified document and that both GOP and
Democratic conventions were in the next couple of weeks, the Administration was
very diligently working on their strategy and tactics for those conventions and
lead up to them. The debates would be in preparation and study.

When
thinking about those very important events, it appears this Administration was
too busy to take care of employees in small insignificant countries.

Say No to BOMapleton, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 9:35 a.m.

Obama, in his own parsed words, claims that he knew terrorists did the deed.He also told us he took personal responsibility for the actions of
government.So, what's the problem?Obama blew it and deserves to
be releived of command on November 6th.This is a referendum on the way he
handled the mess.

GeorgeBronx, NY

Nov. 1, 2012 9:35 a.m.

The only mystery here is how long they far right is going to continue this
completely tasteless behavior that shows a complete lack if respect for the
families of the victims that must endure this daily display of wildly inaccurate
recounting of their loved ones tragic death.

Ultra BobCottonwood Heights, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 9:30 a.m.

I tried to find some creditable facts in this story but found none.

1conservativeWEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 9:23 a.m.

"Peter"@8:09I've read just about everything printed on the
Benghazi attack and I think your theory makes the most sense of anything
I've read.I haven't been able to understand what motivated the
administration to stand by and do nothing.You provide an interesting
motivational hypothesis.

JWBKaysville, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 9:18 a.m.

Even with a hint of any suspicion of a devious act, the Commander-in-Chief has
lost respect for those he is sworm to protect. Omission and Commission of an
act that violates the trust people who are in the far outplaces on assignments
for our country. I remember the look on the faces of the Nixon group when they
were caught. That took a while to play out in the Congressional and Court
system. I remember seeing some of those men at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
in their gentlemen type of quarters for prisoners.

Not a great time
for our country and requiring that we had a President who was not elected become
President due to complicity by both the President and Vice-President.

Honesty is the best policy. If it meant to deceive, then it is not the truth.
If it is not in the performance of duty, then it is not authorized.

For the fact that the Ambassador requested aid and seeking help for his people
and not answered must be a answered.

Why would the Ambassador be in
Benghazi on 9/11 knowing his facility and security were weak and
non-sustainable. Annex was more.

JWBKaysville, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 9:09 a.m.

Thanks to Jay Evensen for his 31 October 2012 piece on "Why doesn’t
the Benghazi attack story have legs?". That has so many good comments from
people in a positive way under this difficult situation.

I believe
the Deseret News is publishing information about this to keep people informed of
United States of America government documents that show what was requested.

On the 13th of September 2012, Jay Evensen wrote a piece that diplomacy
was so important and is such a vital aspect of what the Department of State and
our leaders have developed over the past 250 years, even prior to our becoming a
nation.

Diplomacy is part of the integrity and honor code that our
government purports that they have in the jobs.

I think of the tens
of thousands of dedicated servants in our government, who do their jobs day in
and day out for our country, in a lot of cases in the most difficult locations
and situations.

President Nixon didn't get taken down by the
media. He took himself down by his acts and bringing his closest advisers down
with him.

You commit an act not part of your job procedures, you
lose.

sparkeyClearfield, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 9:08 a.m.

It's almost like the Ambassador knew something about Obama and/or his
administration's policies and was a potential risk for some sort of
whistle-blowing event so he was "taken care of" in a way that avoids
even the potential for such whistle-blowing to come to light. Of course this
may not be true at all but something smells aweful "fishy" about all of
this!

They only count when they involve
Republicans and Bush. If this had occurred under Bush's watch the liberals
and the new media would have been all over it. Does the name "Cindy
Sheehan" ring a bell?

Google "hypocrisy".

Liberal TedSalt Lake City, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 8:32 a.m.

@KJB1

"Since when do rumors and right-wing conspiracy theories
count as news?"

Where is your accurate, unbiased and purely
informational "news" source? Since "news" from any source is
going to have some level of bias in it. Some more than others.

Since
when did the murder of US citizens, which could have been lessened or prevented,
but because of the inaction of the president are now dead, has not been
"news"?

There was more coverage by your "news"
networks on Mitt Romney volunteering and gathering money and supplies for the
people affected by Sandy. Taking time to belittle, downgrade and mock his
efforts to help people; than asking the barack what really happened in
Benghazi.

You can blame Fox News all you want. But, I am glad that
there are different voices out there. Different levels of "news".
Different sources to make decisisions from.

Unless you prefer a North
Korean style of information or another country run by a dictator. And just be
told how good your life is and the rest of the world is suffering. Even though
you're starving. But, don't ask the regime questions. They're
"too important" to answer to the people.

JimEKaysville, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 8:27 a.m.

Kudos to DN!!!!!I'm appalled at how the national media is keeping
this out of the news so they can help get Obama re-elected. Heads should be
rolling for this disaster.Hopefully they will on Nov. 6th.But I
still wonder if criminal negligence should play a role.My vote is yes.

NatePleasant Grove, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 8:24 a.m.

@KJB1

The blunder in the second debate was Candy Crowley's
blunder. Obama's speech on Sep. 12 refers only to general acts of terror.
He did not say that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack. Read the
speech.

The defense secretary is on record saying, "You
don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going
on. [We] felt we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

The fact is, they were watching the attack unfold in real time. They knew
what was going on. And -- knowing what was going on -- they left those men to
die.

There was a counter-terrorism force in Italy that could have
been there in two hours. The decision to deploy them in Libya would have to
have gone before the president. The problem for him was, his re-election
campaign was telling everyone that Libya was a foreign-policy success -- not
descending into chaos.

So he chose to let them die, and then lied
about it, and now he's saying nothing at all.

one old manOgden, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 8:23 a.m.

Wow, the conspiracy theorists are out in force this morning.

NedGrimleyBrigham City, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 8:18 a.m.

The usual crowd now whining: "Why isn't Romney talking about this?"
Talk about it and he's politicizing the disaster, don't talk about it
and it must not be true. Really??

johnnylingo62Gray, TN

Nov. 1, 2012 8:11 a.m.

Romney has already brought up Benghazi and has left it up to forthcoming reports
to validate what he has already alluded to. Since the mainstream media
isn't reporting it, evidence of bias becomes even more clear. this all
shows how polarized and desperate the liberals have become. Truth is no longer
the goal of journalists - every story is skewed to flatter or defame. Who Where
Why What How are no longer the foundation of a NEWS story. What we have now are
propagandists, storytellers, and entertainment soundbites. The story of
General Ham's sudden retirement is the most telling evidence I see that
Panetta is delusional and unable to lead the armed forces - and of course, Obama
his boss - the buck stops here - is not up to the task of making really tough
decisions in real time.

peterAlpine, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 8:09 a.m.

Theory--Benghazi was a planned kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens, so that obama
could come to the rescue and offer to exchange the blind Sheik for Stevens. He
would save the day and easily win reelection. Hence, American forces were told
to stand down because it was not a terrorist attack. Problem, two navy seals
disobeyed orders, went in as trained to help Stevens, because they were unaware
of prearranged kidnapping plans. Stevens was killed by arms he helped smuggle
through Turkey to the very jihadists he helped arm. This is a big coverup by
the WH.

A1994Centerville, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 7:59 a.m.

@KJB1

"Since when do rumors and right-wing conspiracy theories
count as news?"

Four people are dead. The White House changed
its story SEVERAL times on this issue. If there is nothing to hide, why is the
President dodging the questions? None of this story makes any sense. Are you
so partisan that you're okay just ignoring these facts?

FatherOfFourWEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 7:55 a.m.

If anyone thinks the GOP will still care about Benghazi after the election, I
have a Ground Zero Mosque to sell you.

Liberal TedSalt Lake City, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 7:50 a.m.

@KJB1

You are questioning why Governor Mitt Romney hasn't
brought this up.

What you should be asking is why the barack
hasn't mentioned anything about Benghazi. Why hasn't barack talked
about how he watched in real time as Americans were being slaughtered. Why
hasn't he talked about his commanding decision to tell soldiers to stand
down and watch Americans die. Why did he push the blame on a youtube video for
weeks that had already been out for months, for this "random" protest
that caused a bump in the road? Why hasn't he brought the terroists to
justice? Why did he go fund raising the day the murders occured? Why
couldn't he look the parents in the eyes and tell them he did everything
possible to protect them? Why did he turn down request for security?

About the debate. Mitt won all three. The supposed Benghazi flap, turned out
Mitt was right on it. Barack generalized the attack as an "act of
terror". Same as work place violence etc. He never called it a terroists
attack, that is what Mitt was pointing out. But when the moderator is in your
pocket....

Dand_UteWEST JORDAN, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 7:47 a.m.

We will not know any more about this until after the election, and when we do,
if the things we are hearing now we will have a newly reelected president up for
impeachment within two months.

Liberal TedSalt Lake City, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 7:28 a.m.

It's amazing how fast the white house released photos of the situation room
after osamas death. They quickly released a photo after Sandy. Yet they refuse
to release any information about Benghazi. They refuse to talk about it. So much
for the transparency they had promised, "hope & change".

Now as information comes out we know they were communicating with the people
on the ground. Watching the events in real time. We know the men on the ground
were begging for their lives and air support. Obviously they knew enough to
activate special forces and get drones in the air. Yet, they never launched
them. Why? Why not at least a missle when the CIA had a laser lighting up the
location of the mortars? Why couldn't air support be brought in? Are we
worried about libya leaders disapproving? We didn't care about Pakistan or
other nations with terroists. We blow them up with civilians. So why now? Why
hold back now?

The truth is barack couldn't make the call.
barack did not lead Seal Team 6 into Pakistan. barack isn't capable of
making those decisions. barck could barely be a community organizer leader

mdCache, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 7:22 a.m.

@ Terry: I concur with you completely. B.O. wants this to fizzle until the
election is over. Impeach Obama!

jim lWest Jordan, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 7:20 a.m.

The main stream liberal media wants pres. obama elected again. Look at what
glenn beck had to say about this situation. Very interesting.

KJB1Eugene, OR

Nov. 1, 2012 6:57 a.m.

Since when do rumors and right-wing conspiracy theories count as news? If this
were such a smoking gun, why hasn't Mitt Romney even mentioned it since his
blunder in the second debate? I know that Obama has the momentum going into
next Tuesday and you guys are desperate to prop up Romney, but come on...

raybiesLayton, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 6:36 a.m.

This is an important ugly story that's being suppressed because of the
political implications.

RGBuena Vista, VA

Nov. 1, 2012 5:51 a.m.

All this business about a video sparking a protest was a massive coverup
attempt, although very clumsily done, but with the cooperation of most of the
media. Hillary, went around apologizing for the video when she knew, or at least
Obama knew, that was a phony reason. This coverup is much bigger and more
important than Watergate, and it involved deaths of Americans whom the
government could have and should have been protecting, but didn't. If a GOP
president were in charge, the media would have been very, very eager to
investigate this. The hypocrisy of the mainstream media today rivals that of the
scribes and Pharisees at the time of Christ. But someday, "all [the
administration's] iniquities shall be dspoken upon the housetops, and their
secret acts shall be revealed." (D&C 1:3)

TerrySandy, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 1:43 a.m.

Nixon was crucified by the liberal media and forced towards
impeachment/resignation for a bungled cover up in trying to sneak the other
parties campaign strategy! In this Scandal, all evidence points to the Obama
administration to #1 reducing security in a dangerous Libya against many dire
pleadings for more security. #2 they ignored the calls for help for 7 hours
during the attack! #3 Had the nearby special agents that are now dead listened
to those orders to stand down, many more would have died. #4 we know from white
house e-mails released that at this exact same time they knew the terrorist
group taking credit for this attack and yet for weeks they still misled the
American people that this was all the cause from a low budget youtube video!
(for which the author is now in JAIL!) Obvious that the Obama team tried to
cover up their gross negligence in their lack of security and in not sending
these US Citizens any help during the attack despite their desperate calls for
assistance. What happened to leave no man behind (official policy!) Disgraceful
Liberal Media ignoring the story altogether! Obama's far more deserving of
impeachment than Nixon!

IronhideSalt Lake City, UT

Nov. 1, 2012 1:00 a.m.

This is infurirating to read. So much dodge and weave. So much cover up. So
much washington bull. Do politicians really believe we can't tell when they
dance around a question and DON'T answer it? Do they not know what that
does to their credibility? Like we're all a bunch of fools who can't
see through the typical two step. I think the part that gets me the most is that
BO is going to be re-elected with these blatant disregards for security not
being answered for. And there's nothing we can do about it. He won't
say a word until after the election is over. I don't care what he knew.
He appointed the people that are responsible for making these decisions, so it
is his to answer for.

Kyle loves BYU/JazzProvo, UT

Oct. 31, 2012 11:41 p.m.

I don't understand how the President can get away without answering any
questions about it. I mean the only guy who has had the chance to ask him
anything in the last couple weeks is a local newsman from Denver? Why
doesn't the President ever appear before the media?

KJB1Eugene, OR

Oct. 31, 2012 11:09 p.m.

And the DN pretends that rumors and right-wing conspiracy theories are
"news." If this is such a smoking gun, then why hasn't Romney even
mentioned it since his blunder in the second debate? Even Condoleezza Rice has
said that not all the pieces have been put together yet and that the
investigation should proceed without being politicized.

I know you
guys are desperate to prop up Mitt Romney, but this is just silly.

mohokatOgden, UT

Oct. 31, 2012 6:11 p.m.

Bengazi Sept. 11, 2012. Amiercans were dying and Obama is still lying. Do You
Really Trust The Government???? I do not!!! I also do not trust the main stream
media. Beware the Government Media Complex. Something is Rotten in Denmark oh
excuse me Washington D.C. 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Whattheheck?Salt Lake City, UT

Oct. 31, 2012 5:52 p.m.

Thank you DN for keeping the "Benghazi mess" a story in the news, and
for raising new information. We need to keep this in the forefront and make
sure our honest questions receive honest answers (if that's possible). The
burden IMO is on the president's shoulders. He would be more attractive as
a candidate if he owned up to his responsibility regarding this. All he looks
like now is the little kid trying to hide the fact he had his hand in the cookie
jar.